Isle attorney
jailed for 6 years

The parole board is tough on Tom Foley,
who hit a couple, killing the man

By Linda Hosek
Star-Bulletin

The Hawaii Paroling Authority has slapped a Honolulu attorney who killed a man while driving drunk in 1995 with a minimum prison term of six out of 10 years, reflecting the highest category for punishment.

Thomas M. Foley, who pleaded no contest June 13 to first-degree negligent homicide and negligent injury, had asked for a two-year minimum, reflecting the lowest category, said Dan Foley, his attorney.

Tom Foley

"We're disappointed," Dan Foley said yesterday. "They didn't follow their own guidelines."

But Deputy Prosecutor Chris Van Marter said he was pleased with the sentence, even though it was less than the seven to eight years he requested last month.

"It reflects the seriousness of the offense," he said.

In the Jan. 4, 1995, incident, Foley killed Ho Pin Tsai, 33, and injured his wife, Thianh Luu, at King Street and University Avenue when he slammed his BMW into the couple's Buick about midnight.

Police said Foley was traveling at about 70 mph and had a blood/alcohol level of 0.3, three times the then-legal limit of 0.1.

The parole board has three levels intended to reflect a defendant's criminal history and potential for rehabilitation.

Dan Foley said the lowest category ranges from one to three years and fits Thomas Foley's profile. It includes those with no previous felonies who are unlikely to reoffend.

He said a recent probation report concluded that his client would not likely drive drunk again.

Dan Foley said the highest category reflected those with three or more felony convictions who had failed to respond to the criminal justice system and were beyond rehabilitation.

He said the board didn't explain why it didn't follow its guidelines and said that ignoring them was a disservice to the public.

"It's bad policy," he said. "They can change them, but they can't ignore them."

Parole Board Chairman Al Beaver could not be reached for comment. In previous statements on drunken-driving cases involving a death, he said he put more emphasis on a defendant's behavior before the offense than attitude changes after.

Thomas Foley's record included a 1986 drunken driving conviction and a 1990 arrest for drunken driving.

On the night of the 1995 incident, he had six drinks with vodka and water from 5:15 to 8:30 p.m. and stopped at four bars before the accident, according to prosecutors.

Beaver also had said after Foley's hearing that Foley would have to spend at least five years in prison, the minimum the parole board has set in such cases.

During Foley's April sentencing, the victim's family said Foley had taken responsibility for Tsai's death and sending him to jail would not allow him to continue to pay restitution.

But during the July parole board hearing, Van Marter argued that the incident was Foley's fourth contact with the law. He cited the two drunken-driving arrests and another for abusing a household member.

Dan Foley said his client will have to serve one-third, or two years, of his six-year minimum before he can ask the parole board for reconsideration.

The board also determined that Thomas Foley would have to serve five out of five years for negligent injury.

"That's unheard of," Dan Foley said. "That means he not eligible for parole on that offense. The board intended to and did make an example of him."

Dan Foley said his client realizes he has a legal as well as a moral liability to the family, and added:

"His primary concern is to make amends for what he did. He sees his responsibility going beyond the sentence he receives."