Timothy Thomas Oglesby was indicted on one count of felony theft by receiving and two counts of burglary (with the intent to commit a theft). Pursuant to guilty plea negotiations, the felony theft count was nolle prossed, the two burglary charges were reduced to felony theft by taking, and Oglesby pled guilty to those two counts of felony theft. Pro se on appeal, Oglesby contends that the two felony sentences he received are void. “A sentence is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow.”1 Because Oglesby has not shown that either sentence is not allowed, we affirm.

Oglesby argues that the trial court was authorized to impose only misdemeanor sentences, asserting that the state failed to prove that the value of the property at issue exceeded $500. In an attempt to support his argument, Oglesby relies upon the proposition: “Generally, OCGA § 16-8-12 [which proscribes theft by taking] punishes all thefts as misdemeanors unless certain aggravating circumstances are shown. One such aggravating circumstance is that the stolen property ‘exceeded $500.00 in value.’ ”2

Under that proposition, the state would have had to prove such *590value at a trial to support a felony sentence.3 But Oglesby’s felony sentences do not stem from a trial. Rather, the sentences stem from a negotiated agreement to tender guilty pleas to two counts of felony theft by taking, which “necessarily incorporates the defendant’s voluntary admission of the existence of the factual element that the stolen property had a value greater than $500. ”4 Accordingly, “there was a sufficient substitute for evidence of the actual value of the stolen property, so as to authorize the imposition of felony sentences.”5

Judgment affirmed.