Again, he had a choice. If it doesn’t make sense, then take the longer probation. I think his main peeve is he had a deal worked out that the judge chose not to accept. Which is the judges prerogative. Now if the judges only sentence was a shot then I see the issue.
I know he had a choice, but it’s the logical connection between a jab (health issue) and probation time punishment/repayment/public safety (related to crime). They are not connected and his lawyer should appeal.
In other words, say that the judge’s job is to assess a fair sentence from a punishment/repayment/public safety perspective. Which apparently was the least-time probation. The jab is extraneous and outside his scope and a slippery slope, tyrannical ruling.