A Grady County jury found Ceedrice Dewayne Swicord guilty of trafficking in cocaine, OCGA § 16-13-31 a 1, and possession of marijuana, OCGA § 16-13-30 j 1. Swicord appeals from the judgment of conviction. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the marijuana and cocaine evidence seized and that the State failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support his conviction for trafficking in cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Swicord’s conviction for possession of marijuana, but reverse his conviction for trafficking in cocaine. 1. Swicord contends the police were not authorized to arrest him or to search his car, and that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress any evidence seized as a result. While the trial court’s findings as to disputed facts in a ruling on a motion to suppress will be reviewed to determine whether the ruling was clearly erroneous, where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review. While we recognize that a trial court’s ruling frequently involves a mixed question of fact and law, such is not the case in the instant appeal. Accordingly, we will conduct a de novo review of the trial court’s ruling.Footnote omitted. State v. Underwood , 283 Ga. 498, 500-501 661 SE2d 529 2008.
During a hearing on Swicord’s motion to suppress, the State adduced evidence that, at about 9:30 p.m. on September 29, 2005, an investigator with the Southwest Georgia Drug Task Force observed a beige Buick Electra being driven from the public roadway into a Burger King parking lot in Cairo, Georgia. The day before, the investigator had seen Swicord driving the same car in a hotel parking lot and had called dispatch to check the car’s tag. He learned then that the tag was suspended and that the vehicle to which the tag was registered had neither proof of insurance nor proper registration. The investigator could not make an arrest that day, however, because the car was on private property.
