Brown, J.
Jason Dean Hubbell appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Hubbell raises three issues which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to take judicial notice of the record and whether the court denied Hubbell a fair hearing by refusing to obtain his direct appeal record from the Supreme Court Clerk. We reverse and remand.
The relevant facts as discussed in Hubbell’s direct appeal follow:
Sharon Myers left for work at the Arvin plant early on the morning of May 13, 1997. She never arrived. … ….
In November 1997, skeletal remains were found in a marsh area in Johnson County and identified as Myers’ through dental records. …
….
On August 31, 1998, Hubbell was indicted by a grand jury on the charges of murder and criminal confinement. … Hubbell was convicted of both charges after a four-week jury trial in October and November of 1999. The trial court sentenced him to sixty-five years for murder and ten years for confinement, to be served consecutively.
… On direct appeal, Hubbell raised ten issues, and the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. …
On May 24, 2002, Hubbell filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief ….
….
In May 2013, Hubbell sent a pro se motion to the Indiana Supreme Court requesting a copy of the Record of Proceedings from his direct appeal.
….
On October 15, 2015, the court denied Hubbell’s petition for post-conviction relief. In its order, the court stated it had not taken judicial notice of the transcripts of the hearings and trial because it did not have those documents.
….
Hubbell argues that the court abused its discretion and denied him a fair hearing when it declined to take judicial notice of the record and voir dire transcripts. Hubbell argues that Ind. Evidence Rule 201(c)(2) required the court to take judicial notice of the particular documents. …
….
In Graham v. State, 941 N.E.2d 1091, 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), aff’d on reh’g, 947 N.E.2d 962, we held that there was longstanding precedent that the record of proceedings from the original trial must be admitted into evidence at a post conviction hearing, just like any other exhibit, and a post-conviction court may not take judicial notice of that record. …
….
For all these reasons, we decline to hold the court abused its discretion when it refused to take judicial notice of documents that were not before the court. That, however, is not the end of our analysis because Hubbell also asserts the court’s refusal to obtain the certified copy of his direct appeal record denied him a fair hearing.
….
We believe issuing an order requesting the Appellate Courts Clerk to transmit the certified Record of Proceedings from a defendant’s direct appeal does not require Hubbell’s post-conviction court to “go searching for records” or to become his “advocate or investigator” as was discouraged by Graham. … It is a simple request for the post-conviction court to subpoena a designated document. …
The post-conviction rules do not establish a procedure for a pro se petitioner to subpoena a document, but they do explain the procedure if a pro se petitioner wishes to subpoena a witness. See Post-Conviction Rule 1(9)(b). …
….
Rather than obtaining the Record of Proceedings for Hubbell, the post conviction court imposed on Hubbell “the affirmative duty to get the [R]ecord [of Proceedings] to the PCR Court.” … It is not apparent how Hubbell could have accomplished that task when he is not a licensed lawyer, he is proceeding pro se, and he is indigent. Nor does there appear to be a published procedure that allows him to do so.
….
Under these facts, it is difficult to see what more could be expected of Hubbell as he was attempting to present his post-conviction arguments. Until such time as electronic transcripts and records make this issue moot for all petitioners, pro se petitioners need to know how they may ensure the Records of Proceedings from their direct appeals are available for a post-conviction hearing.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the post-conviction court’s denial of Hubbell’s petition for post-conviction relief, order the court to obtain the direct appeal Record, and permit Hubbell to question his witnesses and present his arguments with the benefit of a certified Record of Proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Baker, J., and May, J., concur.