The range here is genuinely wide, and the judge's disposition toward the case matters more than any formula.
A dirty urine on felony probation is a technical violation rather than a new criminal charge, and that distinction works in his favor going into the hearing. He did not commit a new crime. He failed a drug test, which is a violation of a supervision condition but a very different situation than catching a new case while on probation. Most judges recognize that distinction, particularly on a first violation.
The best case outcome is reinstatement of probation, possibly with modified or stricter conditions. That might mean more frequent reporting, mandatory drug treatment, additional drug testing, or a short jail stint as a sanction before being released back onto supervision. Many judges use a first dirty urine as an opportunity to require treatment rather than incarcerate, particularly if there is any documented substance abuse history that was not addressed when probation was originally granted.
The worst case is that the judge revokes probation entirely and imposes whatever remains of the original suspended sentence. If there were several years of probation left to run, the judge could theoretically order all of that time served. That outcome is more likely when the judge views the violation as deliberate defiance rather than a struggle with addiction, or when the original offense was serious enough that the judge was already reluctant to grant probation in the first place.
An attorney who knows this judge and this court is the most valuable asset right now. Coming into that hearing with a documented treatment plan, demonstrated remorse, and a credible path forward gives the judge a reason to choose reinstatement over revocation.