Cumberland County panel rejects challenge to Enrique Roberto Murillo’s city council filing

A Cumberland County Board of Elections hearing panel voted 4–1 on Aug. 12, 2025, that Enrique Roberto Murillo remains a qualified candidate for Fayetteville City Council District 5 after considering evidence that Murillo pleaded guilty in South Carolina and later completed probation.

The panel, sitting as a quasi-judicial hearing body, heard opening statements, received certified court and probation records and allowed cross-examination and closing arguments before voting. Challenger Aline Hatcher argued Murillo falsified his notice of candidacy by answering "no" to whether he had ever been convicted of a felony. Hatcher said the certified documents showed Murillo pleaded guilty to assault and battery in the first degree on Jan. 10, 2012, and she asked the panel to disqualify him. "By knowingly submitting false information, the candidate has not completed the statutory process required for qualification," Hatcher told the panel.

Murillo, representing himself, acknowledged he had entered a plea that resulted in supervised probation and a suspended sentence but repeatedly said he did not consider himself a felon. "I do not consider myself a felon based on my belief of what happened back in 02/2011, 02/2012," Murillo said while under oath. He told the panel he later resolved a probation-fee error that had left an inflated balance and provided receipts showing payment on Aug. 7, 2025.

The evidence admitted included a Horry County (S.C.) sentencing agreement and related docket entries, an order lifting a bench warrant dated Jan. 10, 2012, a South Carolina statutory excerpt for assault offenses, a Horry County public-index search, and a letter from the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction indicating supervised supervision ended in 2013. The challenger offered certified copies of the South Carolina documents; the panel accepted them into evidence.

Panel members debated three central questions: whether Murillo pled guilty or was found guilty of a felony; whether he completed his felony-related probation or supervision; and whether his voting rights had been restored before he filed his notice of candidacy. After deliberation the panel concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Murillo had pleaded guilty to an offense that appears in the South Carolina record, that his period of supervision had ended, and that his voting rights were restored prior to his filing.

The panel chair announced the result to Murillo and the public: "This panel has found that the challenge to your filing has not been affirmed, that you remain a candidate for the office of city council district 5 in the city of Fayetteville." The chair also advised the challenger of the right to appeal to the North Carolina State Board of Elections; the panel said a written decision would be issued by noon the following day and that any appeal must be taken within two business days after service of the written decision.

Panel members and the county attorney discussed a related administrative requirement in state law: when a candidate indicates they have a felony conviction, a supplemental felony-disclosure form must be completed and, if not filed, the board must notify the candidate and give 48 hours to comply; failure to do so can render the filing incomplete such that the name would not appear on the ballot. The panel said it would provide the disclosure notice if its finding required the candidate to complete it and noted the administrative process is separate from the question resolved at hearing.

The panel's vote on whether Murillo met the qualifications was 4 in favor and 1 opposed. The panel recorded no named roll-call votes in the public hearing transcript. The chair said the panel would forward its written decision to the state board of elections and that parties were advised of appeal rights.

The hearing record shows the challenge was filed after Murillo submitted his notice of candidacy on July 16, 2025. The challenger presented certified South Carolina sentencing and disposition documents indicating a plea to assault and battery and a sentence showing a three-year suspended sentence and one year of probation per the South Carolina paperwork; the North Carolina probation letter in the evidence indicates supervised supervision ended in 2013 and that an administrative error had left an outstanding supervision-fees balance later corrected.

No criminal prosecution or other enforcement action was decided at the hearing; the challenger requested referral to the appropriate prosecutorial authority under North Carolina law if the panel found a false statement had been made. The panel limited its decision to the candidate-eligibility challenge before it and did not make criminal findings beyond the evidentiary admissions noted in its decision. The board adjourned after the vote.