The Texas Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Bernardo Perez III for evading arrest with a vehicle. The ruling, made on June 25, 2026, affects Perez, who was sentenced to eight years in prison after being found guilty by a jury. The case highlights the legal standards for evading arrest and the evidence required to support such a conviction.
The case began when Perez was pursued by police on November 16, 2023, after an officer noticed his vehicle had an expired registration. Officer Shawn Curran attempted to pull Perez over by activating his patrol unit's lights and sirens. Despite being directly behind him, Perez continued to drive at a normal speed for several minutes before eventually stopping at a residence. This led to his arrest for evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, a third-degree felony under Texas law.
The dispute centers on whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's decision. During the trial, it was revealed that officers found drug paraphernalia in Perez's vehicle after his arrest. Perez claimed he did not stop immediately because he wanted to avoid having his car towed, not because he was trying to evade the police. The jury ultimately rejected this explanation.
The Texas Court of Appeals reviewed the evidence presented at trial, including testimony from Officer Curran and recordings from police cameras. The court noted that the evidence showed Perez was aware that the officers were attempting to detain him. The opinion stated, "A rational jury could have found that the State proved the essential elements of evading arrest with a vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt." The ruling was issued by Justice W. Bruce Williams, with the panel also including Chief Justice Bailey and Justice Trotter.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal standard for evading arrest in Texas. The court emphasized that failing to immediately comply with an officer's request to pull over can be considered evading arrest, even if the driver does not intend to escape indefinitely. The court referenced previous cases that support this interpretation, stating that "fleeing slowly is still fleeing." This means that individuals who delay compliance with law enforcement can still be charged with evading arrest, regardless of their intentions.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Perez's case. It clarifies the legal expectations for drivers when approached by law enforcement and establishes that the intent to evade can be inferred from the actions taken during a police pursuit. This decision may influence future cases involving similar charges and could affect how law enforcement approaches traffic stops.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Perez will appeal this ruling. Appeals can be made to higher courts, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential next steps. The case serves as a reminder of the legal consequences of evading arrest and the importance of complying with law enforcement directives.