ROBB, C.J.
In December 2009, the State filed a Verified Petition to Revoke Suspended Sentence, alleging Christie was convicted of criminal mischief in November 2009. The trial court held a revocation hearing on January 29, 2010. At the State’s request, the trial court took judicial notice of Christie’s criminal mischief conviction following a bench trial in Knightstown, Indiana Town Court. Specifically, the trial court took judicial notice of certified copies of a charging information, police report, and chronological case summary showing Christie’s conviction, all as contained in the Record of Proceedings of Knightstown Town Court. Following the revocation hearing, the trial court issued an order finding Christie “violated the terms and conditions of the sentence previously imposed.” Id. at 86. Thereafter, following a separate dispositional hearing, the trial court issued its order revoking Christie’s community corrections placement and requiring him to serve the entirety of his remaining sentence at the DOC. Christie now appeals.
. . . .
Christie argues the trial court erred by taking “judicial notice, not of its own records, but of the records of another court in an unrelated matter.” . . . In support, Christie cites case law concerning the propriety of judicial notice of court records. Both Christie and the State overlook Indiana Rule of Evidence 201, [footnote omitted] which provides in relevant part:
(b) Kinds of Laws. A court may take judicial notice of law. Law includes . . . (5) records of a court of this state . . . .
(c) When Discretionary. A court may take judicial notice, whether requested or not.
(d) When Mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information.
. . .
(f) Time of Taking Notice. Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.
Thus, even in a proceeding governed by the Evidence Rules, a trial court may take judicial notice of records of another Indiana court, and may do so at any stage of the proceeding. Probation revocation hearings, to which the Evidence Rules do not apply, Evid. R. 101(c)(2), allow even more flexibility in the admission of evidence, and the same more flexible standard applies in community corrections revocation hearings. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999) (“[W]e hold that in probation and community corrections placement revocation hearings, judges may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability.”). Therefore, the trial court was permitted to take judicial notice of court records showing Christie’s new conviction in Knightstown Town Court. Further, because judicial notice of these records was proper, Christie’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the same.
RILEY, J., and BROWN, J., concur.