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.
If his standard sentence would have been 5 years, I don’t see the problem. Unless there are strict guidelines, the judge has discretion in what he considers the greater good. Like having to help the victim with household chores or picking up trash along the highway in exchange for a reduced sentence.