of a search warrant affidavit. See id.; Jones, 338 S.W.3d at 736 (requiring facts in affidavit to be “closely related to the time of the iss[uance] of the warrant”). In addition, the information provided by the i rring to current activity — namely, that appellant was currently living with an eighteen-year-old male, K.A., and a twenty-one-year-old male, C.S. — -provided neither information regarding appellant’s current possession of child pornography nor information regarding appellant’s current commission of indecency with a child. Moreover, none of the cases relied upon by the majority to support its finding that the information in the affidavit was sufficiently specific and timely to support the search warrant support such a conclusion in this case. See Flores, 319 S.W.3d at 703 (<HOLDING>); McKissick, 209 S.W.3d at 215 (holding that
holding that january 4 2004 schedules and statement of financial affairs could not be used to infer insolvency as of date of transfers that occurred on march 22 2001 march 26 2001 and december 26 2002 holding that magistrate had substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where affidavit which recited information received from anonymous tip from informer in february 2007 regarding narcotic activity on unspecified date included several details about defendant and residence that were later confirmed officer found residue that fieldtested positive for marihuana in garbage can located on street directly in front of residence on march 1 2007 officer found marihuana stems seeds and residue in garbage can on march 5 and search warrant was issued on march 6 and executed on march 7 holding that a magistrate had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where the supporting affidavit elaborated on the crime in detail holding that the march of time began for the period in which to file a rule 59e motion on the date the court entered an order that was immediately appealable holding the fourteen day provision in rule 35a is jurisdictional and reinstating defendants original sentence when defendant was originally sentenced on march 1st defendant filed a rule 35a motion on march 5th the district court held a hearing on the rule 35 motion on march 29th and resentenced defendant on april 12th