upon penalty. Pleas like Yates’s “are entered based upon imaginary or fictional sets of facts.” State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 678 (Utah App.1993) (Jackson, J., concurring). In theft cases where the State is willing to enter into and accept a plea agreement, stolen property’s actual value provides only a starting point for plea negotiations. Once plea negotiations for theft charges begin, the State agrees to value stolen property according to the classification of offense to which the defendant agrees to plead guilty. Upon acceptance of a plea agreement, the State stipulates to certain “facts” supporting a certain classification of offense, and the actual value of the property is irrelevant for purposes of sentencing. Cf. People v. Palmer, 42 Colo.App. 460, 595 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Utah law on this question is clear and the
holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea holding defendants statement about how much marijuana he actually possessed irrelevant after acceptance of guilty plea holding that guilty plea to indictment charging distribution of 1000 marijuana plants did not establish amount of marijuana involved for sentencing purposes where defendant had specifically reserved the issue on entering his plea holding that jurys failure to find the defendant guilty of possession of marijuana could not be reconciled with a verdict of guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to purchase holding that courts mention of a guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility to defense counsel was not reversible error