That seems to make nonsense of this language, though:
"The fact that a guilty plea will be accepted or a guilty verdict returned at the same hearing when sentencing will occur is not a basis to deny coverage of a sentencing proceeding."
Why would they even mention this if it's a completely impossible occurrence?
It isn't impossible in the run of cases and is just extremely unlikely in his. For example that quote from
Rule 4.02(e) is in reference to all criminal cases generally whereas
Minn. Stat. § 609.115, subd. 1(a) only requires a PSI for felony cases and some gross misdemeanors if the prosecutor requests it, but not for other gross misdemeanors or for
any misdemeanors. So there will be many cases comprised of gross misdemeanors and/or misdemeanors with a plea/sentencing combo hearing where that
Rule 4.02(e) quote is on-point, and just as a hypothetical that quote would apply to Nick's case
if the state really cucked out enough to drop the felony count to whatever gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor fits the facts, but it's difficult to imagine any felony plea reaching the point of conviction where that quote would ever apply.
As I mentioned another hypothetical where a felony plea could wrap up in a one-and-done hearing is if his deal is not a stay of execution (i.e. conviction and sentencing with no remand to custody until a probation violation), and not a stay of imposition (i.e. conviction but with no sentence selected until a probation violation), but instead a stay of adjudication, where the case nominally stays open with no present conviction, the state will simply amend the felony count to a selected misdemeanor for immediate conviction of the latter only if and when he successfully completes probation, and the state will push an unamended felony count to conviction only if and when he violates probation. In
that scenario there would be no PSI or subsequent sentencing hearing at all (or at least not until months or years from now when a probation violation happens) because "ha[ving] been convicted of a felony" is the trigger for
Minn. Stat. § 609.115, subd. 1(a) coming into play in the first place, and at the conclusion of the plea hearing there would technically exist no such felony conviction...
yet.
Even in that scenario of a boring one-and-done hearing about a stay of adjudication's terms and conditions, that wouldn't exactly be a plea/sentencing combo hearing affected by that
Rule 4.02(e) quote because no actual sentencing would be occurring at the hearing in the first place. Because there would be no sentencing portion involved, video coverage could be denied on that same basis with only some consolation that video coverage can and should be revisited at such time as a sentencing is triggered in the distant future depending on how the probation shakes out.
I really hope the state didn't cuck out
that hard but it is not unheard of for first-time drug offenders, and come to think of it a stay of adjudication's ability to escape humiliating video coverage under the wording of these rules may have been Nick's primary or even
sole reason to fight so unnecessarily long to get the deal structured that way in the first place.
FRESH INK ALERT 
