In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, plaintiff alleges that Lane Comity indicted him for various crimes and that he filed a pretrial motion in the underlying criminal action to dismiss those charges arguing, in part, that he was being held in violation of Article IV of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). The trial court denied the motion. Plaintiff then filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that he was being held in violation of the IAD. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs habeas petition for failure to state a claim for relief, see ORS 34.680(1), and entered judgment accordingly. We take judicial notice that, after the trial court entered judgment dismissing the habeas petition, plaintiff was convicted in the underlying criminal action of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. See OEC 201(b) and (f); State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Brammer, 133 Or App 544, 547 n 2, 892 P2d 720, rev den 321 Or 268 (1995).

Plaintiff appeals from the judgment dismissing his habeas petition. A writ of habeas corpus is available only if no other adequate remedy exists. ORS 34.362; Mueller v. Cupp, 45 Or App 495, 499, 608 P2d 1203 (1980). If, as plaintiff alleges in his habeas petition, he filed a motion in the underlying criminal action to dismiss the charges against him because of an IAD violation, he has an adequate remedy: He may raise his IAD challenge on direct appeal from his criminal conviction. The trial court correctly dismissed the petition.

Affirmed.