Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
full hearing as to the underlying felony conviction itself). Because the prior conviction was established in a proceeding cloaked with due process, the rights to adequate notice and a fair adjudication have already been satisfied. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 488, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 453-54, 120 S. Ct. at 2362; see also Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 249, 143 L. Ed. 2d 311, 329-30, 119 S. Ct. 1215, 1227 (1999). Moreover, where the previous conviction is acknowledged, it represents an objective fact that is not subject to dispute, and concerns about the need for additional due process protections in a subsequent proceeding are mitigated. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 488, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 453-54, 120 S. Ct. at 2361-62; People v. Watson, 322 Ill. App. 3d 164, 167-68, 749 N.E.2d 1078 (2001) . In this case, however, the triggering
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that undisputed matters of public record are proper subjects for judicial notice
B. holding that courts may take judicial notice of sec filings that are matters of public record
C. recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice
D. recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record
E. holding that the existence of prior convictions are typically matters of public record of which the trial court can take judicial notice without violating the defendants right to due process
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.