Hey, this is an English text. I want you to translate it into the Tunisian dialect. Please follow these steps:
1. Translate step by step and highlight differences between Tunisian dialect and Modern Standard Arabic.
2. Highlight sections you are confident translating into the Tunisian dialect.
Translate this text into the Tunisian dialect, focusing on capturing the essence of the language nuances:

861 S.W.2d 64 (1993) Donald Edwin ROSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 09-92-154 CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont. August 25, 1993. Discretionary Review Refused November 19, 1993. Christine R. Brown, Orange, for appellant. John D. Kimbrough, Orange County Atty., Allison Fletcher, Asst. County Atty., Orange, for State. Before WALKER, C.J., and BROOKSHIRE and BURGESS, JJ. OPINION WALKER, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from a conviction for the felony offense of Aggravated Robbery. Appellant was found "guilty" by a jury but elected to have the trial court assess punishment. Appellant pleaded "true" to two enhancement allegations which raised his punishment exposure to that of an habitual offender. The trial court assessed appellant thirty (30) years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant requests our consideration of four points of error, viz: Point 1: The evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. *65 Point 2: The trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant appellant's motion for new trial. Point 3: The appellant was not granted effective assistance of counsel as provided for in the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Point 4: The trial court erred in overruling appellant's objection that the photographic lineups should not be admissible due to the fact that the individuals used in the lineup were not similar enough to the description of the suspect and thus were suggestive. Although appellant's first point of error complains of the lack of evidence to support the conviction, a detailed rendition of the facts is not in order as appellant concentrates his argument on the specific issue of lack of identity of appellant as the perpetrator of the robbery. The record reflects that there were two eyewitnesses to the robbery which occurred at the Texaco Star Stop # 1 in Orange on November 23, 1991. The State elicited testimony from both witnesses, Kathy Mendoza, the clerk on duty at the time of the robbery, and Juleia Domingue, an assistant clerk who was located near the beverage coolers when the robbery occurred. The record reflects that throughout their testimony, which included some very vigorous and heated cross-examination questions regarding the identity of the perpetrator, both Ms. Mendoza and Ms. Domingue steadfastly maintained that it was appellant who committed the robbery. Both women positively identified appellant in court as the perpetrator of the robbery. Indeed, Ms. Domingue's testimony included the fact that she had seen appellant in the store earlier on the day of the robbery and was able to describe his appearance down to the color of his eyes. The argument contained in appellant's brief under this point of error notes a variety of discrepancies in the testimony of Ms. Mendoza as compared to the testimony of Ms. Domingue. Portions of testimony from the State's third witness, Dan Robertson, police chief of the city of Pinehurst, are also used by appellant to point out possible inconsistencies in the women's testimony. The long established rule in Texas, however, is