concurring:
I am troubled by the majority’s seemingly casual reliance on the double jeopardy clause as grounds for reversal. While the double jeopardy clause may be invoked in various contexts, its principal design is to protect criminal defendants from multiple trials and multiple punishments for the same offense. United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975); Commonwealth v. Walker, 468 Pa. 323, 362 A.2d 227 (1976). Where there is no threat of either successive prosecutions or multiple punishments, the double jeopardy clause is not offended. Commonwealth v. Yost, 305 Pa.Super. 316, 451 A.2d 549 (1982); Commonwealth v. Beckman, 304 Pa.Super. 239, 450 A.2d 660 (1982); United States v. Hecht, 638 F.2d 651 (3rd Cir.Pa.1981). In my view this case does not engender double jeopardy concerns.
A criminal defendant has a “constitutional interest in finality, a cognizable interest in seeing that criminal proceedings against him are resolved once and for all.” Wes-ten and Drubel, “Toward a General Theory of Double Jeopardy,” 1978 Sup.Ct.Rev. 81. Here however, appellant has no right to expect that his problems with the Commonwealth have been resolved. His constitutional interest in finality has not yet vested.
Certainly, a criminal defendant, once convicted, may rest confident that he will not be retried for the same offense. A participant in an ARD program, however, is not *532entitled to the same confidence. Admission to an ARD program is not equivalent to a conviction under any circumstances. Commonwealth v. Knepp, 307 Pa.Super. 535, 453 A.2d 1016 (1982). Rather, participation in a diversion program results in a deferral of criminal charges until completion of the program. Pa.R.Crim.P. 181. In the event that the program is successfully completed, the charges are dismissed and no conviction ever results. Commonwealth v. Knepp, supra. Only when the program is completed may an ARD participant feel secure in final disposition of charges, not before. Only then may he shield himself with the protection of the double jeopardy clause.
In this case, appellant has completed only one phase of his diversion program. The Commonwealth removed appellant from ARD while appellant had remaining conditions of diversion yet to complete. While I think appellant should be given the opportunity to complete ARD, it is not by reason of double jeopardy.
Rather, I view the concept of contract as the compelling analogy. Dr. Miraglia’s letter written under District Attorney letterhead, which directs appellant to attend safe driving school, extends appellant an offer of the ARD alternative. When appellant accepted that offer by enrolling in the safe driving clinic, an agreement or arrangement was entered into. As the majority notes:
In placing a defendant into a diversion program, the state covenants to dismiss the charges once the defendant satisfies the conditions of the program. Unless the defendant violates one of those conditions, the state cannot prosecute him. Just as the terms of a plea bargain arrangement are binding on the state, Commonwealth v. Landi, 280 Pa.Super. 134, 421 A.2d 442 (1980), so must the terms of a diversion agreement bind the state. (Majority op. at p. 19).
By removing appellant from diversion, for reasons other than a failure to comply with conditions of diversion, the Commonwealth has breached its agreement.
*533Accordingly, I concur in the result reached by the majority, appellant should be allowed to complete ARD. This disposition is proper, not because the Commonwealth’s removal of appellant from ARD is a double prosecution or double punishment, but rather, it is plainly a breach of agreement.