Perez v. Texas — Affirmed conviction for evading arrest; failure to immediately stop at officer’s lights and sirens constitutes fleeing

Case
Bernardo Perez III v. The State of Texas
Court
Eleventh Court of Appeals, Texas
Date Decided
June 25, 2026
Docket No.
11-24-00311-CR
Topics
Criminal law, vehicle evasion, traffic stops, sufficiency of evidence

Background

On November 16, 2023, Officer Shawn Curran observed Bernardo Perez III’s vehicle with an expired registration and activated his emergency lights. When Perez failed to pull over, Curran activated his sirens. Perez continued driving at normal road speed for approximately two minutes through residential areas, making four or five turns, before finally pulling into a residence and stopping. During a vehicle inventory, officers discovered drug paraphernalia and suspected marijuana.

Perez provided conflicting explanations for his delay: he told Officer Curran he didn’t stop sooner because he wanted to get his car home, and told Deputy Knotts he drove home to avoid his vehicle being towed. Video footage from Chief Stephens’s dashcam captured the entire pursuit, showing Perez’s vehicle remaining approximately one car length ahead of the patrol unit.

A jury convicted Perez of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, a third-degree felony under Texas Penal Code § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A), and assessed punishment at eight years’ imprisonment. Perez appealed solely on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

The Court’s Holding

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the court concluded that a rational jury could have found all essential elements of the offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court rejected Perez’s argument that he lacked the requisite intent to flee, holding that the jury was entitled to reject his explanation that he merely sought to prevent his vehicle from being towed.

The court emphasized that Texas law does not require high-speed or prolonged flight to constitute evading arrest. Instead, “fleeing slowly is still fleeing,” and “anything less than prompt compliance with an officer’s direction to stop” can constitute fleeing when the defendant has ample opportunity to comply. The court noted that Texas courts have consistently held that failure to immediately submit to an officer’s show of authority—activated lights and sirens—is sufficient to satisfy the evading arrest statute, regardless of the defendant’s stated motivation.

The court further held that the defendant’s lack of intent to escape indefinitely is irrelevant. Even temporary evasion satisfies the statute. The discovery of drug paraphernalia in the vehicle supported an inference that the delay provided time to hide or discard evidence, reinforcing the inference of intent to evade.

Key Takeaways

  • Evading arrest with a vehicle does not require high-speed or prolonged pursuit—even slow, brief delays in compliance constitute fleeing.
  • A jury may reject a defendant’s alternative explanation for non-compliance (e.g., preventing towing, going home) in favor of an evasion inference when the defendant fails to immediately respond to lights and sirens.
  • The defendant’s lack of intent to escape indefinitely is immaterial; momentary evasion satisfies the statute if the driver intentionally delayed submission to a lawful command.
  • Presence of contraband supports an inference that delay was deliberate to allow evidence disposal, supporting the evasion charge.

Why It Matters

This decision clarifies the scope of Texas’s evading arrest statute and confirms that the offense encompasses even minimal delays in compliance with police authority. Officers need not engage in high-speed pursuits or demonstrate that a defendant intended to escape permanently. The ruling effectively means that during routine traffic stops, a driver’s decision to take even a short time to pull over—if the court views it as intentional—can result in an evading arrest charge.

The decision has practical implications for traffic enforcement and driver behavior, as it establishes that juries have broad discretion to reject drivers’ explanations for delayed compliance and that the bare failure to stop immediately upon seeing lights and sirens can constitute guilt. This significantly expands police authority in traffic stops and reduces any safe harbor for drivers attempting to reach a safe location before stopping.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top