agreement because of the significant constitutional rights the defendant waives by entering a guilty plea. If a plea agreement is imprecise or ambiguous, such imprecision or ambiguity will be construed in favor of the defendant. Id.; see also State v. Hayhurst, 207 W.Va. 259, 531 S.E.2d 324 (2000). Likewise, an overwhelming majority of our sister states construe ambiguous plea agreements in favor of the defendant and against the State. See, e.g., Humphrey v. State, 686 So.2d 560, 562 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (stating ambiguous plea agreement must be read against the government); Keller v. People, 29 P.3d 290, 297 (Colo.2000) (finding ambiguous terms of plea agreement must be construed in favor of defendant and against government); State v. Adams, 117 Conn.App. 747, 982 A.2d 187, 191 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Stedman v. District of Columbia, 12 A.3d
recognizing that any ambiguity in plea agreement should be construed against state recognizing the lack of logic in requiring ambiguity which may be fortuitous to prove the true terms of an agreement holding that railroad immunity act should be strictly construed recognizing ambiguous terms of plea agreement are construed against government recognizing a latent ambiguity in a lease agreement