a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such association; Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the portion of the trial addressing Mathews’s charges for public intoxication and intimidation are the same “matter in controversy” for purposes of disqualification or that reversal is required. See Den-ton v. State, 496 N.E.2d 576, 581 (Ind.1986) (“While in the usual habitual offender determination the same jury hears both the felony charge and the recidivist charge in a bifurcated proceeding, we have previously held that it is permissible for a different jury than the one who heard the case on the underlying felony charge to determine a defendant’s habitual offender status.”), reh’g denied; Gunter v. State, 605 N.E.2d 1209, 1210-1211 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. Given that Judge Miller did
holding that while it was error for the regular judge to disqualify himself for only the habitual phase of the trial the error was harmless holding it was error to include language from geesa but such error was harmless recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding exclusion was harmless error