dissenting.
Believing our holding in Jaynes v. State, 673 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), correctly interpreted Tex.Code Crim.Proe.Ann. art. 42.12, § 3 as limiting the length of the probationary term to the maximum term of confinement prescribed by law, I dissent to Part II of the majority opinion.
I.
At the time of appellant’s trial, Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 42.12, § 3(a) provided in pertinent part:
... Except as otherwise provided by this section, in all felony cases where the punishment is assessed by the Court it may fix the period of probation without regard to the term of punishment assessed, but in no event may the period of probation be greater than 10 years or less than the minimum prescribed for the offense for which the defendant was convicted....
Generally, the application of art. 42.12, § 3 is not problematic because, for the vast majority of felonies, the maximum length of probation falls within the punishment range of all three classes of felonies.1 However, the application of art. 42.12, § 3 becomes problematic for those rare felonies where the maximum term of confinement is less than ten years. See e.g., Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701d (failure to stop and render aid); art. 6701Z-1 (driving while intoxicated); and, art. 9012 (reproduction of sound recording for sale without owner’s consent).
II.
We addressed this problematic area in Jaynes, 673 S.W.2d 198. Following Jaynes’ conviction for failure to stop and render aid, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701d, §§ 38 and 40, the trial judge assessed punishment at eight years confinement, probated for a period of eight years. On appeal, Jaynes contended the trial judge erred in assessing probation in excess of the maximum term of confinement for the offense, five years. Eight judges of this Court agreed, holding:
... Although Article 42.12, Section 3, V.A.C.C.P., allows imposition of a probationary term without regard to the term of punishment assessed, as long as the probationary term is not greater than ten years, we believe that it does not allow the imposition of a probationary term in excess of the maximum term of confinement allowable for the offense.2
Id., 673 S.W.2d at 202 (citing Pedraza v. State, 562 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Cr.App.1978)).3 Compare, Bridges v. State, 664 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).
In the instant case, appellant was convicted of the felony offense of driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to two years confinement, probated for eight years. Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701Z — 1(e). However, art. 6701Z~l(e)(2) provides for a maximum term of confinement of five years. Therefore, consistent with our holding in Jaynes, appellant’s term of probation may not exceed five years. Jaynes, 673 S.W.2d at 202.
III.
The majority’s re-interpretation of art. 42.-12, § 3 is in direct conflict with our decision in Jaynes, 673 S.W.2d 198. The doctrine of stare decisis commands that we follow settled questions of law in the absence of com*310pelling reasons to reject them, see, Ex parte Porter, 827 S.W.2d 324, 329 (Tex.Cr.App.1992) (Baird, J., dissenting op.), and cases cited therein. The majority provides no compelling reason to reject Jaynes. Consequently, the instant case is governed by our holding in Jaynes and the majority’s abrupt “disavowal” of that holding is unwarranted. Majority op. pg. 308, n. 8.
With these comments, I respectfully dissent.
. Similarly, Tex.Code Crim.Proe.Ann. art. art. 42.12, § 3 specifically provides that probation may be set at a maximum two years for those third-degree felonies which are punished by a maximum of one year confinement in a community correctional institution. See, Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 12.34(a)(2).
. All emphasis is supplied unless otherwise indicated.
. In Jaynes, we relied upon the reasoning in Pedraza v. State, 562 S.W.2d 259, 259-260 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), which addressed the maximum period of probation in the context of the misdemeanor probation statute, Tex.Code Crim.Proc. Ann. art. 42.13, § 3. While the majority suggests our holding in Jaynes resulted from a misreading of the applicable statute, majority op. at pg. 308, we specifically noted in Jaynes that although Pedraza involved a different probation statute, the reasoning was equally persuasive with regard to felony probation. Jaynes, 673 S.W.2d at 202.