Smallwood v. Martin, 2013 WL 1846841 (5/3/13) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - A troubling case for habeasphiles, not so much for normal, well-adjusted human beings. The 10th holds a petitioner's state post-conviction petition did not toll the statute of limitations because it raised issues that should have been raised on direct appeal. This seems to contradict Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2001), which held that a state petition is "properly filed" and thus tolls the limitations period even if state law procedurally bars it. And the revelation of corruption among Tulsa police officers did not restart the limitations period. The officers' failure to report their own corruption at the time of the defendant's guilty plea did not constitute a Brady violation. And, anyway, the petitioner did not allege officers planted drug evidence in his particular case, like they did ion lots of other cases.