With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". finding of premeditation. We therefore hold ■ that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Fox’s first-degree premeditated murder conviction. IV. We have also reviewed the claims in Fox’s pro se supplemental brief relating to his conviction and sentence. None of these claims has merit. Additionally, Fox raises claims relating to the conditions of his confinement. These claims are not addressed here because they are more appropriately raised in a petition for habeas corpus relief or in a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). See Kelsey v. State, 283 N.W.2d 892, 895 (Minn.1979) (stating that habeas corpus may be used to challenge prison conditions as cruel and unusual punishment); see also In re J.A.G., 113 Ill.App.3d 140, 68 Ill.Dec. 697, 446 N.E.2d 868, 870 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. 1 . The district court did not

A: holding that the record on direct appeal was insufficiently developed to permit the appellate court to assess the merits of the claim
B: holding ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be decided on direct appeal where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue
C: holding that delinquent minor could not challenge the conditions of his confinement on direct appeal from his commitment because the record would not be sufficiently developed on this issue to permit review
D: holding we may consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal when the issue presented is purely one of law and  depends on the factual record developed below
C.