Barron-Aguilar (Tito) v. State ( 2015 )

 was the source of the drugs. But below, appellant only argued that the
evidence was Brady material because it was useful for impeaching the
informant regarding his drug addiction, which had been established. An
appellant cannot change his theory underlining an assignment of error on
appeal. Ford v. Warden, 111 Nev. 872, 884, 901 P.2d 123, 130 (1995).
Moreover, as appellant himself points out, the theory he advances on
appeal is inconsistent with his testimony at trial, and given that
testimony, he cannot complain that the evidence was withheld, see United
States v. Diaz, 922 F.2d 998, 1007 (2d Cir. 1990) (concluding that Brady
was not violated where evidence at issue was within the defendant's
knowledge), or that it was material, see Mazzan v. Warden, 116 Nev. 48,
66, 993 P.2d 25, 36 (2000).
Having considered appellant's contentions and concluded that
they lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
, C.J.
Hardesty
J.
Parraguirre
J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge
Law Office of David R. Houston
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A