context: 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. SS 1983 (2012).
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 446 N.E.2d 868, 870
citation_a.parenthetical: 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
citation_a.sentence: 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 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).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 283 N.W.2d 892, 895
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that habeas corpus may be used to challenge prison conditions as cruel and unusual punishment
citation_b.sentence: 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 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).